I question Pete's judgment since he claimed he played his best towards the end of his career when he was being straigth setted by Hewitt in slams he previously owned. Not to mention that his personality tends to be petty and has been quite bitter about Federer breaking his records ever since he did.

^ +1
He said "ALMOST" playing better - and he totally meant it as a compliment. But leave it to the fedfanbois to get their "I <3 Roger" boypanties all twisted up in knots ..... what prisses...and people wonder why others view tennis as a pussie sport?​

haha, indeed you too just a joke Sunny Ali. As I can see, your brain is not very good and 'Sunny' Ali not very bright <---- awrraahahaha, ironee very funny. Would suggest having calf brains for dinner....would maybe improve I.Q., eh funnyman?​

G.O.A.T.

What are you babbling about? Yeah, Sampras is just overjoyed Fed erased his name throughout the record book. I'm sure Sampras send Fed's wife and kids gifts constantly. Fed probably had to tell him to stop.

Talk Tennis Guru

Really? Pray tell (since you apparantly know him very well) when's the last time you had his family over for dinner? (read: who's the bitter one here?)​

HOWWWW DARE HE!!!!!!! ​

^ +1
He said "ALMOST" playing better - and he totally meant it as a compliment. But leave it to the fedfanbois to get their "I <3 Roger" boypanties all twisted up in knots ..... what prisses...and people wonder why others view tennis as a pussie sport?​

haha, indeed you too just a joke Sunny Ali. As I can see, your brain is not very good and 'Sunny' Ali not very bright <---- awrraahahaha, ironee very funny. Would suggest having calf brains for dinner....would maybe improve I.Q., eh funnyman?​

Legend

Federer has played the last year and half at an incredibly high level. Do I think he played better than 10 years ago? Yes and no. Today, he has a better serve, better volley and anticipation at the net, and his backhand is equal or better than what it was 10 years ago. However, the forehand is clearly not at its best and he is not as athletic, which means he can't grind like he could when he was 24 and his defense to offense is not the same. I do believe he is more aggressive today than he was 10 years ago and his opponents do have less time to react, which translates into him ending points quicker. So from a tennis player standpoint, you could argue that he is better in some ways but he is not the athlete that he once was.

Manufactured nuance. I realize there is a gray area for almost every position, but for this one it is very small. Federer isn't as good as he was in 2006, on aggregate, not even close.

I think there's a lot of misconceptions surrounding his backhand -- for one, there's the prevailing notion that it's better now than it was from 2004-2007. In my judgment that is patently false. On the pass it's not as good, and the slice is weaker. As a rally shot it's roughly comparable, but remember that from 2004-2007 it was really only Nadal on clay that exploited his backhand, and even then it held up better than it would now (see: Rome 2006). As a whole it is a weaker stroke. He was able to produce backhand exhibitions then that he simply wouldn't be capable of now, like the TMC final vs Blake or any number of Wimbly matches from that period. It is better now than it was from 2010-2013, but not better than it was in his prime, and especially not better than it was 10 years ago -- 2006 was arguably when his bh was at its strongest, on all fronts.

The improvement on his serve was borne out of necessity more than anything else, and as noted there's been a marked increase in tour-wide holding% in the past 10 years. Relative to the field, his serve is about the same it's always been, if marginally better.

Legend

Lol Dedan's actually a good and quite funny poster, he's just embittered by the various run-ins he's had with TMF over the years, hard to blame him

I do agree that good tennis analysis, oddly enough, seems to almost be out of the purview of many ex-pros, be they sympathetic to Fed/Djok or not. I won't comment on any possible ulterior motives on Pete's part, I just (strongly) disagree with the conclusions he's reached.

I do agree that good tennis analysis, oddly enough, seems to almost be out of the purview of many ex-pros, be they sympathetic to Fed/Djok or not. I won't comment on any possible ulterior motives on Pete's part, I just (strongly) disagree with the conclusions he's reached.

G.O.A.T.

Pete is constitutionally incapable of not always stressing the positive in any player he's asked about...not saying he's wrong but hard to believe anybody wouldn't know that if they followed now 14 years of these questions to him, and his answers...and yet there are still some loons here who will claim to read his mind and depict him as a raving nut about the current guys breaking his records...which is what they wish, and are themselves a lot of the time

G.O.A.T.

Manufactured nuance. I realize there is a gray area for almost every position, but for this one it is very small. Federer isn't as good as he was in 2006, on aggregate, not even close.

I think there's a lot of misconceptions surrounding his backhand -- for one, there's the prevailing notion that it's better now than it was from 2004-2007. In my judgment that is patently false. On the pass it's not as good, and the slice is weaker. As a rally shot it's roughly comparable, but remember that from 2004-2007 it was really only Nadal on clay that exploited his backhand, and even then it held up better than it would now (see: Rome 2006). As a whole it is a weaker stroke. He was able to produce backhand exhibitions then that he simply wouldn't be capable of now, like the TMC final vs Blake or any number of Wimbly matches from that period. It is better now than it was from 2010-2013, but not better than it was in his prime, and especially not better than it was 10 years ago -- 2006 was arguably when his bh was at its strongest, on all fronts.

The improvement on his serve was borne out of necessity more than anything else, and as noted there's been a marked increase in tour-wide holding% in the past 10 years. Relative to the field, his serve is about the same it's always been, if marginally better.

From your judgement, the backhand is weaker. From my perspective and quite a few tennis analysts and former players, it is not. Both opinions are subjective so unless you can provide some scientific proof to how much his backhand has weakened, then it is just opinions on both accounts. I never said he was overall as good as 2006 and only stated that it can be argued to how he was in some ways better. I was also stated how I felt he was also worse in some ways.

We are not talking to an expert, we're talking to you. Statistics? What statistics? Show us statistics that a human body is physically the same in his 40s as in his 20s. The way you dismiss a PhD's research shows us how, well, I'll stop here, it will get ugly.

By the way, it's not the only research that proves that bodies decline physically. Where is your 'STATISTIC' that it's not?

Dude, just stop pretending - we can understand - than to make yourself look like an idiot claiming that human body does not physically decline, and look like a pathetic lunatic dismissing Science. Seriously, It's better, for us to think that you're a troll rather than for us to think that you are just plain stupid and dumb to insist that human body doesn't decline physically: your posts after this will never be again taken seriously. So I'll just believe that you're a troll.

Hall of Fame

1. Djokovic what he doing very amazing. I appreciate and I want him break Federer 17 slam record. So I not hate Djokovic
2. Sampras- greatest grass player all time and one of greatest ever. So I appreciate and not hate him

I hope that clear. I disagree some Sampras opinion, thats all.

Many Federer fans very frustrated by Djokovic beat Federer again and again slam finals so I am think they hate Djokovic. But that not my problem, but their choice. I hope clear now.

Really? Pray tell (since you apparantly know him very well) when's the last time you had his family over for dinner? (read: who's the bitter one here?)​

HOWWWW DARE HE!!!!!!! ​

^ +1
He said "ALMOST" playing better - and he totally meant it as a compliment. But leave it to the fedfanbois to get their "I <3 Roger" boypanties all twisted up in knots ..... what prisses...and people wonder why others view tennis as a pussie sport?​

haha, indeed you too just a joke Sunny Ali. As I can see, your brain is not very good and 'Sunny' Ali not very bright <---- awrraahahaha, ironee very funny. Would suggest having calf brains for dinner....would maybe improve I.Q., eh funnyman?​

Hall of Fame

And you cannot lecture us about Science. At least I have some back up like research from professionals.

We are not talking to an expert, we're talking to you. Statistics? What statistics? Show us statistics that a human body is physically the same in his 40s as in his 20s. The way you dismiss a PhD's research shows us how, well, I'll stop here, it will get ugly.

By the way, it's not the only research that proves that bodies decline physically. Where is your 'STATISTIC' that it's not?

Dude, just stop pretending - we can understand - than to make yourself look like an idiot claiming that human body does not physically decline, and look like a pathetic lunatic dismissing Science. Seriously, It's better, for us to think that you're a troll rather than for us to think that you are just plain stupid and dumb to insist that human body doesn't decline physically: your posts after this will never be again taken seriously. So I'll just believe that you're a troll.

Low IQ poster poster who wants to talk about science and has not taken a single course on Statistics, nor does understand what a mean or standard deviation mean, and want to pretend he speaks in the name of an PhD whereas he simply doesnt understand a paper.

So tell me, where did I say that body does not decline? Not to mention math or statistics but have you learned to read at all? Like in reading comprehension?

You only have to measure Federer speed then and now, or post a paralell video of him in 2004 and now where you show so. You failed miserably to produce it. Next please.

G.O.A.T.

Low IQ poster poster who wants to talk about science and has not taken a single course on Statistics, nor does understand what a mean or standard deviation mean, and want to pretend he speaks in the name of an PhD whereas he simply doesnt understand a paper.

So tell me, where did I say that body does not decline? Not to mention math or statistics but have you learned to read at all? Like in reading comprehension?

You only have to measure Federer speed then and now, or post a paralell video of him in 2004 and now where you show so. You failed miserably to produce it. Next please.

Measuring speed on a tennis court is not a simple exercise from the couch.
Question: What does a guy like you do if three ATG's - say Sampras, McEnroe and Wilander - have a different view of the status of the game, the status on Fed's game etc? And neither provides the reasons for their view, but simply states it.
Do you just sit back in awe and then pick the view of the guy who has the most majors?

Hall of Fame

Measuring speed on a tennis court is not a simple exercise from the couch.
Question: What does a guy like you do if three ATG's - say Sampras, McEnroe and Wilander - have a different view of the status of the game, the status on Fed's game etc? And neither provides the reasons for their view, but simply states it.
Do you just sit back in awe and then pick the view of the guy who has the most majors?

It depends on the subject of dicussion, if it just tastes or something deeper, if they are defending themselves or on the contrary, detrimental to their legacy (these would be less suspicious like in this case of Sampras). In any case you have to listen.

Can you specifically cite the three of them on this point or any other for all of us to evaluate? Like I can cite Agassi, Gilbert, Sampras here, Federer own words, Nole, uncle Toni?

G.O.A.T.

It depends on the subject of dicussion, if it just tastes or something deeper, if they are defending themselves or on the contrary, detrimental to their legacy (these would be less suspicious like in this case of Sampras). In any case you have to listen.

Can you specifically cite the three of them on this point or any other for all of us to evaluate? Like I can cite Agassi, Gilbert, Sampras here, Federer own words, Nole, uncle Toni?

Semi-Pro

Why are people still bothering with that Alien dude? He has been proven dead wrong, dead stupid and a blatant hypocrite by his own moronic standards. Surely he has lost all credibility if he ever had any to begin with. I mean it's been good fun seeing how his "mind" works, we've all pointed our fingers and laughed, but now it's just like backing up over some roadkill...

On a not so off chance he has no shame and will continue posting here, I ask him to provide the proof for his statements in the same manner he asked other posters. It's only fair, and in any case the one making the most idiotic statement should bear the burden of proof, and it doesn't get much worse than his statements:
1) "I am as fast in my 40s as I was in my 20's" - prove it. Go to your old institution where you were locked up, get your running results, have them signed by your teacher and notarized, then post a video of you running that same distance in the same time with a continuous shot of a clock and your running. Run in the same mark of shoes, worn down the same, of course, on the same track, in the exactly the same weather and wind conditions. Also get your weight and body fat measurements from then and now.
2) "Roger hasn't physically declined" - prove it. Post a video of Roger in 2005 and 2015 running after the same shot, hit by the same player in the same spot in the same court on the same surface. Roger has to see it at the same exact time, run after it with the same determination and the same willpower, and just to be on the safe side the score has to be the same so his motivation is not in question.

This shouldn't take long, right? When you do this, then we'll approach the subject more generally, I already have great ideas concerning dr. Schultz's research. You'll love it.

Professional

Low IQ poster poster who wants to talk about science and has not taken a single course on Statistics, nor does understand what a mean or standard deviation mean, and want to pretend he speaks in the name of an PhD whereas he simply doesnt understand a paper.

I don't think I attacked you personally. You seem to resort to that whenever you are kinda cornered. Atleast I have some back up unlike you who spouts statistics again and again when you don't even have any proof, and the very 'statistics' that you're saying contradicts your argument. You mean Federer is an exception to the rule? Man you're delusional or whatever you call it.

Really? The reason why we are having this argument is because of your logic that body doesn't decline, and those retired players didn't experience that but simply failed to improve, no? Have you just forgotten or are you being stupid now? Also:

Your bullsh1+ in this thread is overflowing that it overwhelmes all of us, including you causing you to forget what you said. Not to mention your I'm-40-and-I'm-physically-better-than-other-20-year-olds. Of course, are you guys professional athletes? Bullsh1+. You better quit this mate. It's embarassing. Go to your science professors and tell them that and they will slap you hard. Have you learned anything from them? I'm inclined to believe that you're a troll rather than a plain stupid and dumb guy.

You're always asking us to post videos of Federer's physical decline. I don't really think that we do have to post videos. There's an abundance of it on YouTube, you can just tell the difference there. It's more than just proof. I'll have a hundred post if I do that and that's really not good.

How about posting videos or giving evidences that Roger has not declined physically, or is as fast as he was 10 years ago? Or you wanna insist yur stupid argument again that we don't decline physically?

Professional

Been reviewing Pete matches over the past month. Been awhile. What a beast. An American sporting icon along with AA. He is unappreciated and I will never forget how great Pete was. After federer broke his record and then Nadal tied he has been virtually swept under the carpet. I will have none of that.
Djokovic is a beast. Federer was never able to stand up against Nadal like Djokovic has.
Djokovic is just cementing his legacy now.
Pete Sampras was Djokovic's sporting hero when he was growing up. All he wanted to do was win Wimbledon. And to think he might end with 3 or more. I see 4 or 5. Will be his Valhalla when he hits his 30's.

Sampras is underrated I think because you had Laver, and he WAS THE BEST, then Borg comes along, people weren't going around "He's better than Laver", just "He's great", in short Sampras just lays down his racket as the "Greatest" and comes along a guy like him whose a bit better in the back court, charasmatic, so Sampras never really had a long time of people saying "Man I miss the Sampras days", he had a replacement QUICK.

But I agree, BEAST is the right word, just so good, often I wonder how he'd do on modern slow courts, I doubt he'd be successful, but I would be cash money that he'd blow out Djokovic, Nadal, even in some cases a prime Federer on 90's fast courts, great, great player. Actually go back and watch Laver on tape, I think you'll be surprised, I was never had seen him play.

G.O.A.T.

Sampras is underrated I think because you had Laver, and he WAS THE BEST, then Borg comes along, people weren't going around "He's better than Laver", just "He's great", in short Sampras just lays down his racket as the "Greatest" and comes along a guy like him whose a bit better in the back court, charasmatic, so Sampras never really had a long time of people saying "Man I miss the Sampras days", he had a replacement QUICK.

But I agree, BEAST is the right word, just so good, often I wonder how he'd do on modern slow courts, I doubt he'd be successful, but I would be cash money that he'd blow out Djokovic, Nadal, even in some cases a prime Federer on 90's fast courts, great, great player. Actually go back and watch Laver on tape, I think you'll be surprised, I was never had seen him play.

Professional

Why can't you open the stats links? they are are regular ATP-links. Anyhow, don't tell me you believe in exho's and that Fed is giving it his very, very best all the time here? (and that it's a coincidence that a show match has two TB's and it ends with 8-6 in the third).

Parts of the 90's were strong, parts of the 90's were weaker than Fed's competition in 06.
Both could have changed their game, but I think Pete was a perfect player for his era just as Rafa and Novak are for this era. Fed can, imo, better fit into both eras. Anyway, don't think we'll get any further on this and need to do other stuff. Cheers!

I can open the stats links if data wasn't a issue...and I'm at work...going through tedious stats is not the way I wanna spend my time..i'd much rather use that time to frustratingly type threads on my touch phone...

I am just stating my opinions. I posted a reply after you asked... We need not disprove each others opinions. I still feel the Same about the 90's even though I agree that there were weaker parts in both eras.

Professional

The reason I call certain posters out for constantly mentioning Federer's age is because, quite simply, they focus way too much on how good he was in his pomp. When discussing his rivalry with Djokovic these past couple of years it makes sense to only talk about how good he is now instead of continually comparing his level to the 04-07 years. I guarantee if Roger's fans had never seen him play before 2014 they'd be acknowledging him as a tough opponent for Novak in this current era and deep down they know it. No, Fed isn't as good as he once was. His forehand isn't as potent these days and his movement, although still excellent, isn't what it once was, especially when pulled out wide on the forehand side. And FWIW I do think his peak level is greater than Djokovic's but why should that take any of the shine off Novak's wins against him in recent years? It's not like Nole's the first all time great player in history to be beating a great champion who's past his prime and he certainly won't be the last. At the end of the day Federer is still one helluva player, exemplified by his still being ranked so high and being capable of defeating every other player but the world number 1. And the funny thing is, so many Fed fans themselves are all over the place when it comes to his age. On the one hand you'll hear some of them say "well let's see if Djokovic is still reaching slam finals at 34", then on the other you'll hear them disparaging Fed's form and making out that he's really not that great at 34 after all considering how much they criticise nearly every aspect of his game. Seriously, some of their contradictions make my head spin at times. It never fails to amuse me how many Nole fans are more complimentary about Federer nowadays than the Fed fans are ! And no, before any of y'all say it, I honestly don't believe it's because we're simply trying to pump up our favourite's toughest opponent, rather it's because we acknowledge a guy who's one of the finest talents the sport's ever seen and whose longevity and consistency is second to none, not to mention his incredible desire and resilience. You know, posting on this forum used to be a pleasure for me when I first joined but sadly I just don't feel the same way anymore due to all the constant negativity and weak era talk. I'm not saying anyone has to like Novak, I'm not saying they have to consider him the GOAT or anything silly like that but for Christ's sake at least have the good grace to acknowledge his well earmed achievements instead of tearing him down just because he isn't defeating peak Fedal to win his majors. Sampras, Borg and Laver didn't defeat peak Fedal either but you don't hear those guys being sl@gged off all the time by TTW's illustrious keyboard warriors.

Sorry about the essay mate but every now and then I feel the need to vent and tonight was as good a time as any. I can well understand your need for breaks from this place and I strongly suspect another one is on the horizon for me in the not too distant future!

Professional

I question Pete's judgment since he claimed he played his best towards the end of his career when he was being straigth setted by Hewitt in slams he previously owned. Not to mention that his personality tends to be petty and has been quite bitter about Federer breaking his records ever since he did.

Legend

1. Djokovic what he doing very amazing. I appreciate and I want him break Federer 17 slam record. So I not hate Djokovic
2. Sampras- greatest grass player all time and one of greatest ever. So I appreciate and not hate him

I hope that clear. I disagree some Sampras opinion, thats all.

Many Federer fans very frustrated by Djokovic beat Federer again and again slam finals so I am think they hate Djokovic. But that not my problem, but their choice. I hope clear now.

Actually the match was fairly competitive, with Federer being injured and barely able to move.

Federer's match here has more in common with Sampras' match against Bastl. Fed's never had a Krajicek 1996 moment, he was only beaten by All Time Greats in Wimbledon finals (and he's still to this day unbeaten in Wimbledon semifinals).

Hall of Fame

Roger is like some menace who is waiting around corner for Djokovic to have a slump or to get injured. Like Dorian Gray - never gets old bcs of some devilish thing that keeps him going.
How can you overtake someone like that ?

Hall of Fame

Oh no, what's one of the greatest athletes in history doing giving his opinion on a player of the sport he dominated? Of course he should have deferred to the Talk Tennis legends before opining, since they know so much better than him.

Otha, there are 4 grand slams in a year so the best Djokovic can do is win 4. He's likely to win 3 this year so the only way to go faster is win the calendar slam next year

He doesn't really need to do it. At current pace, he'll catch Federer by end of next year and in 2021, he'll break Federer's slam record. By this time next year though, he'll have broken Federer's weeks at No 1 record.

Hall of Fame

And hilariously, some Fedfans are acting like the #1 record never really mattered to them even though they used to say it was so much more important than the YE #1 in an effort to diminish Sampras's achievement over Federer.

Petros ... LOL X 10,000! Djokovic will break Federer's weeks at No 1 record, there is little doubt about that.

The slam record will also most likley be broken. The Federer fans are just getting ready for it by minimizing its importance. They can say anything they like but those 2 records are the most important ones in tennis and Federer won't be holding them for long

Hall of Fame

Actually the match was fairly competitive, with Federer being injured and barely able to move.

Federer's match here has more in common with Sampras' match against Bastl. Fed's never had a Krajicek 1996 moment, he was only beaten by All Time Greats in Wimbledon finals (and he's still to this day unbeaten in Wimbledon semifinals).

Hall of Fame

Well Petros, he did say ... he was only beaten by All Time Greats in Wimbledon finals so I think he's only referring to finals but in that case, Sampras never lost a final despite playing 7 of them! Anyways, it's another worthless statistic conjured up by Federer fans to prop him up. He's an all time great player, so I don't know why such stats are even necessary.

Yes, Sampras lost to the likes of Krajicek & Bastl but Federer lost to Stak and Berdych/Tsonga. Hardly proves anything in my book but if the Federer fans are seeing something in it, it's simply a fanboy thing.

Hall of Fame

Well Petros, he did say ... he was only beaten by All Time Greats in Wimbledon finals so I think he's only referring to finals but in that case, Sampras never lost a final despite playing 7 of them! Anyways, it's another worthless statistic conjured up by Federer fans to prop him up. He's an all time great player, so I don't know why such stats are even necessary.

Yes, Sampras lost to the likes of Krajicek & Bastl but Federer lost to Stak and Berdych/Tsonga. Hardly proves anything in my book but if the Federer fans are seeing something in it, it's simply a fanboy thing.

Hola Sunny G, I was responding to his statement that "Fed never had a Kracijek 1996 moment" (which is why I highlighted it by pointing out that Big B and Mistah T gave him the boot, back to back years no less.

Hall of Fame

Yes, Sampras lost to the likes of Krajicek & Bastl but Federer lost to Stak and Berdych/Tsonga. Hardly proves anything in my book but if the Federer fans are seeing something in it, it's simply a fanboy thing.

Hall of Fame

Hola Sunny G, I was responding to his statement that "Fed never had a Kracijek 1996 moment" (which is why I highlighted it by pointing out that Big B and Mistah T gave him the boot, back to back years no less.

On another note: just a few years ago, when it appeared Federer's record was beyond anyone, any thread about Sampras was met with venom by Federer fans. But now, so many Sampras threads but hardly a word from Federer fans. I wonder if it has anything to do with Djokovic hunting down Federer's records